HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 2352020016v1 235/2/354    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gray, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gray, J. E.

Reference Values for Diagnostic Radiology: Application and Impact¹

¹ From Landauer, 2 Science Rd, Glenwood, IL 60425 (J.E.G.); Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex (B.R.A.); American College of Radiology, Reston, Va (P.F.B.); University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada (B.B.H.); University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (F.A.M.); Upstate Medical Physics, Victor, NY (R.J.P.); Mayo Clinic and Foundation, Rochester, Minn (B.A.S.); Children’s Hospital, Boston, Mass (K.J.S.); Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Md (O.H.S.); and Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada (M.J.Y.). Received February 1, 2002; revision requested March 25; final revision received July 8, 2004; accepted August 4. Address correspondence to J.E.G. (e-mail: jgray@landauerinc.com).
^{2 2}Consultants to the Task Group and the organizations they represent are listed in the Acknowledgments.

Reference values (RVs) are recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine for four radiographic projections, computed tomography, fluoroscopy, and dental radiography. RVs are used to compare radiation doses from individual pieces of radiographic equipment with doses from similar equipment assessed in national surveys. RVs recommended by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine have been developed from the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends survey performed by the state radiation protection agencies with the cooperation and support of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, and the American College of Radiology. The RVs selected by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine represent, approximately, the 80th percentile of the survey distributions. Consequently, equipment exceeding the RVs is using higher radiation doses than is 80% of the equipment in the surveys. Radiation doses for specific projections, with standard phantoms, should be measured annually, as recommended by the American College of Radiology. When the RVs are exceeded, the medical physicist should investigate the cause and determine, in cooperation with the responsible radiologist, whether these doses are justified or the imaging system should be optimized to reduce patient radiation doses. RVs are a useful tool for comparing patient radiation doses at institutions throughout the United States and for providing information about radiographic equipment performance.

© RSNA, 2005

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D HART, M C HILLIER, and B F WALL National reference doses for common radiographic, fluoroscopic and dental X-ray examinations in the UK Br. J. Radiol., January 1, 2009; 82(973): 1 - 12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. L. Nickoloff, Z. F. Lu, A. K. Dutta, and J. C. So Radiation Dose Descriptors: BERT, COD, DAP, and Other Strange Creatures RadioGraphics, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 1439 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. E. Muhogora, N. A. Ahmed, A. Almosabihi, J. S. Alsuwaidi, A. Beganovic, O. Ciraj-Bjelac, F. K. Kabuya, A. Krisanachinda, M. Milakovic, G. Mukwada, et al. Patient Doses in Radiographic Examinations in 12 Countries in Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe: Initial Results from IAEA Projects Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2008; 190(6): 1453 - 1461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Lanca, A. Silva, E. Alves, F. Serranheira, and M. Correia EVALUATION OF EXPOSURE PARAMETERS IN PLAIN RADIOGRAPHY: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH EUROPEAN GUIDELINES Radiat Prot Dosimetry, April 22, 2008; (2008) ncn144v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-H. Buhk, E. Elolf, D. Jacob, H.-H. Rustenbeck, A. Mohr, and M. Knauth A Comparison of Angiographic CT and Multisection CT in Lumbar Myelographic Imaging AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2008; 29(3): 442 - 446. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. Bohy, V. de Maertelaer, A. Roquigny, C. Keyzer, D. Tack, and P. A. Gevenois Multidetector CT in Patients Suspected of Having Lumbar Disk Herniation: Comparison of Standard-Dose and Simulated Low-Dose Techniques Radiology, August 1, 2007; 244(2): 524 - 531. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Vano, J. M. Fernandez, J. I. Ten, C. Prieto, L. Gonzalez, R. Rodriguez, and H. de Las Heras Transition from Screen-Film to Digital Radiography: Evolution of Patient Radiation Doses at Projection Radiography Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 461 - 466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. SEERAM and P. C. BRENNAN Diagnostic Reference Levels In Radiology. Radiol. Technol., May 1, 2006; 77(5): 373 - 384. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]